Posted by Peta Hopkins on May 29, 2006
Professor Arthur Sale (Research Coordinator for the School of Computing at University of Tasmania) has submitted a proposal to the Australian Research Council requesting changes to funding rules and agreements that would require grantees to deposit their published articles in an OAI-PMH compliant repository. The proposal was prepared by Arthur and some other movers and shakers in institutional repositories, including Stevan Harnad, Alma Swan and Peter Suber, and has the personal support of a number of Australian and international members of the Open Access Community.
Reproduced here the executive summary:
The submission is addressed to making a change in the reporting requirements for all funded schemes, which will make it a requirement of receiving the grant to deposit an electronic copy of any refereed research journal or conference articles deriving from the grant with the institution administering the grant. Minor changes are needed in the Funding Rules and the Funding Agreements. Precise wording is supplied to eliminate any concerns by publishers and to make the implementation easy.
The benefits to Australia are that Australia’s ARC publicly funded research is made visible to all through the Internet, and in the majority of cases publicly accessible. This will raise Australia’s research impact and is consistent with Australia’s espousal of a level playing field in the dissemination of research, and with activities currently underway or implemented in the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.
The full submission is available from http://eprints.comp.utas.edu.au:81/archive/00000277/.
Should this proposal be adopted, articles arising from ARC funded research would have to be deposited in an institutional repository. Bond's repository is ready.
Posted in General | Comments Off on Proposal for ARC to mandate research article archiving
Posted by Peta Hopkins on May 27, 2006
The CharteringLibrarian reviews a blog post by Dr Jill Walker, from the department of Humanistic Informatics at the University of Bergen and reproduces her wishlist of features to encourage more academics to be active in the use of research repositories.
I'll reproduce them here as they are good points to get us thinking about what we want in our repository and to see what we already have.
- I want the data I enter to be usable by other web applications – an open API. For instance, Flickr’s open API means that I could write a program that uses my
- I want RSS feeds that I can put in my website, the way I can put my most recently bookmarked articles from CiteULike there. (Look down in the left menu to see an example) (This is in the version currently in beta, I’m told.)
- I want to be able to click a keyword on an article and see other articles not just in my own institution’s repository but across repositories.
- I want the University to be the bad guy and insist that everything I publish go into the Institutional Repository. That way I can blame the university when I have to argue with the journals and publishers.
- I want the University to make a contract I can send the publishers to simplify this process for me.
- I only want to deal with one system! I don’t want to register my publication in FRIDA and in BORA (they’re going to be combined, I’m promised)
- How do you want your data to be re-used in other applications?
- At present firstname.lastname@example.org only has an RSS feed for newly added content. I have asked our system vendor if it is possible for us to establish other rss feeds. For example, feeds for each individual author, or feeds based on a search query. Content could then be easily syndicated and displayed on other web pages or personal blogs, or subscribed to using a news aggregator for users to keep up-to-date with research being published in their field.
- The keyword clicking may not yet be on the horizon, but it is possible to search across multiple repositories. OAIster enables searching across 7,498,800 records from 639 institutions. e-publications@bond is included. We have also made contact with the ARROW Discovery Service to have our data harvested for inclusion in that service. ARROW stands for Australian Research Repositories Online to the World. We are also working with the ADT program to have Bond's theses metadata harvested for inclusion in the Australian Digital Theses program.
- As previously posted, QUT has a policy requiring authors at that institution to deposit research papers in their repository within the constraints and limitations of copyright law. Its performance in coverage of HERDC compliant publications is far and away better than other universities surveyed.
Sale, Arthur (2006) Comparison of content policies for institutional repositories in Australia. First Monday, v.11, no. 4 (3 April 2006).
E-print repository for research output at QUT (http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/F/F_01_03.html, viewed 20th April 2006)
- Authors may try to modify copyright transfer in future contracts by including a clause such as:
I retain the right to distribute my paper for free for scholarly/scientific purposes, in particular, the right to self-archive it publicly online in a Web-based institutional repository such as e-publications@bond (http://epublications.bond.edu.au)
- This relates back to the automated re-use of metadata by different systems to allow discovery through multiple services while the management of the files and metadata entry is only carried out in one place. See points 3 and 2 and 1 above.
So finally, what do you want in a research repository?
Posted in General | Comments Off on What do researchers want in a repository?
Posted by Peta Hopkins on May 19, 2006
I'm pleased to say that we are making steady progress building content in the repository.
28 papers uploaded
1st electronic thesis uploaded
71 full text downloads in the last 7 days
Search box added to ilearn@bond's library tab (Blackboard learning system)
3 out of 4 faculties have at least 1 paper uploaded
Next week testing will commence for harvesting metadata for the Australian Digital Thesis Program.
Posted in General | Comments Off on Progress report